On 10 Sep 2009, at 9:28 am, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > Can we at least agree that a developer, having read the Thing One > report, should be able to *use* the module system without making > guesses as to how a particular implementation organizes it? R6RS > failed to address finding standard modules in an installed system. >
+1. This is what I most hope to get out of R7RS; sockets and the like are all very well, but if even basic computation-only programs aren't portable unless you cripple yourself by not being able to modularise them and share library code, then we're in real trouble! I must confess I don't know much about Scheme library/module systems. I know how Python and Java's systems work, and how C's non-system non- works (if you see what I mean), but as my favourite implementation (Chicken) only just recently added a formal module system and I've not upgraded to the latest version (for various reasons, laziness being high among them), I'm woefully behind on the state of the art. Rather than grovelling through lots of different manuals, is there any good summary of the different approaches, or excellent papers on notable systems, out there that I might be referred to, please, anyone? Thanks! ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
